On Maintaining Consistency of Process Model Variants

  • Emilian Pascalau
  • Ahmed Awad
  • Sherif Sakr
  • Mathias Weske
Part of the Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing book series (LNBIP, volume 66)


Today’s enterprises are dynamic where many variances of business process models can exist due to several reasons such as: the need to target different customer types, rely on particular IT systems or comply with specific country regulations. Automated maintenance of the consistency between process variants is an important goal that saves the time and efforts of process modelers. In this paper, we present a query-based approach to maintain consistency among process variants. We maintain the link between the variant process models by means of defining process model views. These views are defined using, BPMN-Q, a visual query language for business process models. Therefore, dynamic evaluation for the defined queries of the process views guarantee that the process modeler is able to get up-to-date and consistent status of the process model. In addition, our view-based approach allows the building of a holistic view of related variants of the same process model.


Business process design Reuse Querying business processes Process variants 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Weske, M.: Business Process Management: Concepts, Languages, Architectures. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Awad, A.: BPMN-Q: A Language to Query Business Processes. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on Enterprise Modelling and Information Systems Architecture (EMISA 2007). LNI, vol. P-119, pp. 115–128. GI (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sakr, S., Awad, A.: A framework for querying graph-based business process models. In: Proceedings of the 19th International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2010), pp. 1297–1300. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    OMG: Business Process Modeling Notation 1.2 (BPMN 1.2) Specification, Final Adopted Specification. Technical report, OMG (2009)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Keller, G., Nüttgens, M., Scheer, A.: Semantische Prozessmodellierung auf der Grundlage Ereignisgesteuerter Prozessketten (EPK). Technical Report 89, Institut für Wirtschaftsinformatik, Saarbrücken (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    van der Aalst, W.M.P., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: YAWL: yet another workflow language. Information Systems 30(4), 245–275 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    OMG: UML 2.0 Superstructure Specification (August 2005), http://www.omg.org/spec/UML/2.0/Superstructure/PDF/
  8. 8.
    Vanhatalo, J., Völzer, H., Koehler, J.: The refined process structure tree. In: Dumas, M., Reichert, M., Shan, M.-C. (eds.) BPM 2008. LNCS, vol. 5240, pp. 100–115. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rosemann, M., van der Aalst, W.M.P.: A Configurable Reference Modelling Language. Information Systems 32(1), 1–23 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Reijers, H.A., Mans, R.S., van der Toorn, R.A.: Improved Model Management with Aggregated Business Process Models. Data Knowledge Engineering 68(2), 221–243 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Baier, T., Pascalau, E., Mendling, J.: On the suitability of aggregated and configurable business process models. In: Bider, I., Halpin, T., Krogstie, J., Nurcan, S., Proper, E., Schmidt, R., Ukor, R. (eds.) BPMDS 2010 and EMMSAD 2010. LNBIP, vol. 50, pp. 108–119. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Decker, G., Overdick, H., Weske, M.: Oryx – Sharing Conceptual Models on the Web. In: Li, Q., Spaccapietra, S., Yu, E., Olivé, A. (eds.) ER 2008. LNCS, vol. 5231, pp. 536–537. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosa, M.L., Reijers, H., Aalst, W., Dijkman, R., Mendling, J., Dumas, M., Garcia-Banuelos, L.: Apromore: An advanced process model repository (2009), http://eprints.qut.edu.au/27448/
  14. 14.
    Estublier, J., Casallas, R.: The Adele Software Configuration Manager. Configuration Management. Trends in Software (1994)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Tryggeseth, E., Gulla, B., Conradi, R.: Modelling Systems with Variability using the PROTEUS Configuration Language. In: Estublier, J. (ed.) ICSE-WS 1993/1995 and SCM 1993/1995. LNCS, vol. 1005, pp. 216–240. Springer, Heidelberg (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Turkay, E., Gokhale, A.S., Natarajan, B.: Addressing the middleware configuration challenges using model-based techniques. In: ACM Southeast Regional Conference, pp. 166–170. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Batory, D.S., Geraci, B.J.: Composition Validation and Subjectivity in GenVoca Generators. IEEE Trans. Software Engineering 23(2), 67–84 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Czarnecki, K., Helsen, S., Eisenecker, U.: Formalizing Cardinality-Based Feature Models and Their Specialization. Software Process: Improvement and Practice 10(1), 7–29 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schobbens, P.Y., Heymans, P., Trigaux, J.C.: Feature Diagrams: A Survey and a Formal Semantics. In: Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2006), pp. 138–148 (2006), http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/RE.2006.23
  20. 20.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S.W.: Managing Process Variants as an Information Resource. In: Dustdar, S., Fiadeiro, J.L., Sheth, A.P. (eds.) BPM 2006. LNCS, vol. 4102, pp. 426–431. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S.W.: On the Discovery of Preferred Work Practice Through Business Process Variants. In: Parent, C., Schewe, K.-D., Storey, V.C., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 2007. LNCS, vol. 4801, pp. 165–180. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    van der Aalst, W., Basten, T.: Inheritance of Workflows: An approach to tackling problems related to change. Computing Science Report 99(06) (1999), http://is.tm.tue.nl/staff/wvdaalst/publications/p85.pdf
  23. 23.
    Basten, T., van der Aalst, W.: Inheritance of Behavior. Computing Science Report 99(17) (1999), http://is.tm.tue.nl/staff/wvdaalst/publications/p93.pdf
  24. 24.
    Puhlmann, F., Schnieders, A., Weiland, J., Weske, M.: Variability mechanisms for process models. Technical Report 17/2005, Hasso-Plattner-Institut (June 2005)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schnieders, A., Puhlmann, F.: Variability mechanisms in e-business process families. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Business Information Systems (BIS 2006). LNI, vol. 85, pp. 583–601. GI (2006)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lu, R., Sadiq, S.W., Governatori, G., Yang, X.: Defining Adaptation Constraints for Business Process Variants. In: Abramowicz, W. (ed.) BIS 2009. LNBIP, vol. 21, pp. 145–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rosa, M.L., Lux, J., Seidel, S., Dumas, M., ter Hofstede, A.H.M.: Questionnaire-driven Configuration of Reference Process Models. In: Krogstie, J., Opdahl, A.L., Sindre, G. (eds.) CAiSE 2007 and WES 2007. LNCS, vol. 4495, pp. 424–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emilian Pascalau
    • 1
  • Ahmed Awad
    • 1
  • Sherif Sakr
    • 2
  • Mathias Weske
    • 1
  1. 1.Hasso-Plattner-InstituteUniversity of PotsdamGermany
  2. 2.National ICT Australia (NICTA)University of New South WalesAustralia

Personalised recommendations